Compare/MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) vs Qwen3.5 Omni Plus

MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)vsQwen3.5 Omni Plus

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Xiaomi

MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)

Input
Output
Speed
TTFT
Alibaba

Qwen3.5 Omni Plus

Input
$0.4/M
Output
$4.8/M
Speed
49 tok/s
TTFT
2.51s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Faster (tok/s)
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Lower Latency
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Benchmarks (1-0)
MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)

Pricing Comparison

MetricMiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Input ($/M tokens)$0.4
Output ($/M tokens)$4.8
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus$0.88

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
49 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
2.51s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) wins the overall benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) is strongest on Intelligence Index (34.0). Qwen3.5 Omni Plus leads on Intelligence Index (31.3).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Xiaomi and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Xiaomi tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Aggregate benchmark score (sum across 12 categories, capped at 100): MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) = 34, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus = 31. Within 15% — effectively equivalent if both meet the threshold your product requires.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
34.031.3
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026)1 wins
0 winsQwen3.5 Omni Plus

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) or Qwen3.5 Omni Plus?

Qwen3.5 Omni Plus is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.50/M tokens vs $—/M for MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3.5 Omni Plus. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens faster at 49 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus has lower time-to-first-token (2.51s vs —s).

When should I use MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) vs Qwen3.5 Omni Plus?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for lower cost, MiMo-V2-Flash (Feb 2026) for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.